Modified T-72 entered the VBO motorized rifle unit

The first batch of T-72B3 entered one of the motorized rifle units in Transbaikalia, reports MIC with reference to the press service of the SBI.




“In terms of its parameters, the tank is almost similar tank T-90, but more economical in production and repair, ”the release said.

“The tank’s armament consists of an 125 millimeter cannon and two machine guns to destroy enemy personnel and low-flying targets. The crew consists of 3 people. The tank is equipped with a four-stroke V-shaped 12-cylinder multi-fuel engine with liquid cooling power 840 hp The equipment is equipped with a Sosna-U sight with automatic target tracking and a thermal imager. Installed weather sensor and a modern ballistic computer »- told the press service.

It is noted that this modification of the tank differs from the previous ones with new track tracks with a parallel hinge, “which increases mobility and mobility, as well as increases the service life of equipment”.
Photos used:
gurkhan.blogspot.com
Ctrl Enter

Noticed a mistake Highlight text and press. Ctrl + Enter

91 comment
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. ilichstar 16 October 2015 09: 18 New
    • -14
    • 0
    -14
    and where is "Almaty" ???
    1. Engineer 16 October 2015 09: 28 New
      • 15
      • 0
      +15
      Armata has not yet passed state tests. It will pass, prepare production and begin to gradually replace such tanks in the Army. You don’t think that several thousand modern tanks can be made in a few months? There will be a release for more than one year. But such tanks will still maintain the combat effectiveness of the tank units.
      1. MIKHAN 16 October 2015 09: 38 New
        • 9
        • 0
        +9
        Let's see .. It’s a good tank, like! But in this direction there’s a lot of tanks, it’s better to play it safe.
        1. Firstvanguard 16 October 2015 10: 00 New
          • 7
          • 0
          +7
          "Neckline" eye cuts tryndets sad
          But better than the T-72A, even so.
          1. GRAY 16 October 2015 10: 23 New
            • 5
            • 0
            +5
            Quote: Firstvanguard
            "Neckline" eye cuts tryndets

            There, the most protected part of the tower is niches with layers of composite armor laid in layers.
            DZ blocks close them from the sides, since a cumulative jet or a core of a projectile can pass between these plates.
          2. Vadim237 16 October 2015 21: 56 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Actually, this modernization concerns the T 72B.
        2. Esso 16 October 2015 10: 48 New
          • 21
          • 0
          +21
          This tin can is in progress, it must be sent back to the factory for normal modernization. The dynamic protection is contact-5, it was accepted in 86. Although you’d put a relic, close the upper part, the forehead and the sides. And so that without holes. Next, the anti-aircraft gun should be remotely controlled and all the shields on the optics open remotely. Here’s a normal upgrade of the T-72V2 slingshot. You decided to save, you need to steal less. Let Serdyukov and Vasilyeva take the money.
          1. Alexey RA 16 October 2015 11: 45 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            Quote: Esso
            This tin can is in progress, it must be sent back to the factory for normal modernization. The dynamic protection is contact-5, it was accepted in 86. Although you’d put a relic, close the upper part, the forehead and the sides. And so that without holes. Next, the anti-aircraft gun should be remotely controlled and all the shields on the optics open remotely. Here’s a normal upgrade of the T-72V2 slingshot. You decided to save, you need to steal less. Let Serdyukov and Vasilyeva take the money.

            You forget - when the decision was made on T-72Б3.
            In those days, the army received 65 tanks a year. Despite the fact that it was necessary to change about 2000. And do it urgently - because on that moment the bulk of the Russian BTV tanks are obsolete and physically worn out. Okay, there are T-72A or B - at that time in the units were T-62 and even T-55AM. And with the pace of replacement then available, in a couple of years we would have received 2 divisions on the T-90 and ... and that’s all - the rest of the formations would be cut using Soviet-era technology. Although hardly dissected, they would have been kept in the boxes.

            Simply put - you had to get at least 200 tanks a year. At a price of 50-60 million each. Based on this, they chose the modernization option, called later the T-72B3. Yes, it is inferior to the T-90. But how many of these T-90s are in the troops?
            On the other hand, the new T-72B3 surpasses the bulk of tanks that was previously in service with the BTV.
            1. tomket 16 October 2015 12: 15 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Quote: Alexey RA
              You forget - when the decision was made on T-72Б3.

              Do not tell me why then cut t-80? If we had dofiga parts with t-55? Or why did they disband the combat-ready units on the t-80, making them storage bases, instead of replacing the same t-55? Or maybe it would be better to disband the parts on t-55 and save with t-80?
              1. Alexey RA 16 October 2015 12: 27 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: tomket
                Do not tell me why then cut t-80? If we had dofiga parts with t-55? Or why did they disband the combat-ready units on the t-80, making them storage bases, instead of replacing the same t-55? Or maybe it would be better to disband the parts on t-55 and save with t-80?

                Probably because the situation with "gas turbine tanks" is not as good as the proponents of this engine try to present to us. smile

                Plus, the design bureau and the parent plant for T-80 (more precisely, tank production of LKZ) fell in an unequal battle with the market.
                1. tomket 16 October 2015 13: 00 New
                  • 1
                  • 0
                  +1
                  Quote: Alexey RA
                  Probably because the situation with "gas turbine tanks" is not as good as the proponents of this engine try to present to us.

                  Well, it’s clear that in the Serdyukov’s concept, gas turbine fuel tanks aren’t enough. And in general, on tracked vehicles. Toli case "centaurs"! For some reason, the Americans are in no hurry to massively re-equip their Abrams with diesel engines. We have a lot of factories helped to fall in an unequal struggle with the markets. and spreading continued in well-fed times. Recall, at least, the epic of the birth of the "alligator", which appeared not thanks to, but contrary to the efforts of the generals, which at that time had long been no longer Yeltsin-Grachev.
                  1. Alexey RA 16 October 2015 14: 25 New
                    • 1
                    • 0
                    +1
                    Quote: tomket
                    Well, it’s clear that in the Serdyukov’s concept, gas turbine fuel tanks aren’t enough. And in general, on tracked vehicles. Toli case "centaurs"!

                    Bgggg ... actually, questions about the gluttony of the T-80 arose in the USSR. And not Serdyukov came up with a diesel version of the T-80. smile
                    By the way, according to the Serdyukov concept, the army began to receive 3 times more new heavy tracked vehicles than before.

                    As for the “centaur” and other “boxers,” the weighting of wheeled vehicles began again before the furniture maker. Remember the BTR-90 and all the problems associated with it?
                    All these dances around imported wheeled BBMs were inevitable - domestic design bureaus needed samples of working and tested in a series of chassis. not to reinvent the wheel.
                    Quote: tomket
                    For some reason, the Americans are in no hurry to massively re-equip their Abrams with diesel engines.

                    Hehehehehe ... the idea of ​​throwing a turbine out of MTO "abram" and putting diesel instead of it on the Yankees pops up regularly. And regularly drowned in standard "where is the board"?"
            2. DarkMatter 16 October 2015 14: 18 New
              • 3
              • 0
              +3
              Alexey RA, you are reasoning correctly, the logic is obvious and no one argues that old tanks should be replaced with new ones, BUT if you have already begun to do the modernization, then be kind enough to complete it and do it normally. Everywhere holes in the remote sensing that the budget of 60 million did not fit the tower normally cover ?! (I'm not talking about Contact or Relic, just do a human pancake) Do you know about optics protection? You know what you need to climb out of the tank with a key to unscrew the pancake nuts! Wait, wait, don’t shoot, now I’ll get out, I’ll open the optics, climb back and then shoot, we’ll start ... This is beyond good and evil, I don’t understand how people could come up with such a “modernization”, while others accepted it. In 60 million damn 4 nuts fit, right?
              You know, old tanks must be replaced, those that can still serve should be modernized, but do it normally, and not through one place!
              That’s what I want to tell you and I think many who scold this modernization project talk about this, and not about the quantity per year and more.
              Here is the T-72B3
        3. The comment was deleted.
      2. ZU-23 16 October 2015 09: 40 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        This is so, purely poachers to drive through the forest laughing
      3. The comment was deleted.
      4. Friday 16 October 2015 14: 29 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Alas, the dinosaur tank is overdue in time, modern tankers will open at a time, its times have passed.
        Modernization b3 is shocking, so successfully put on a small cab in winter and walk in it in the cold.

        Those individuals who legalize such a technique - put inside and shoot at the tank, not with old Soviet weapons, but with modern ones.
    2. sailor 16 October 2015 10: 06 New
      • -3
      • 0
      -3
      What is it that every day they probably write about modernization of tanks, give a message so far forget about Armata vaunted-exalted
      1. Maxom75 16 October 2015 10: 44 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Already wrote about helicopters. What do you offer all the T-72 in scrap? Expensive is a pleasure. Tanks should be decommissioned after being put into service with Almaty. But for putting into service Armata must first be brought to mind, so as not to say oops later. T-72 upgraded will be sold to the same Syrians, Africans, Afghans or Persians. So do not drive the cart in front of the horse, everything goes according to the schedules.
    3. GSH-18 16 October 2015 10: 06 New
      • 6
      • 0
      +6
      “In terms of its parameters, the tank is almost the same as the T-90 tank, but more economical in production and repair,” the release says.

      This is the number! It turns out the T-90 is the same T-72, the current is a bit modernized ??? Is the T72 service better than the T90? belay Or is it such an excuse for not delivering tanks of the latest modifications to the troops?
      1. tomket 16 October 2015 10: 48 New
        • 4
        • 0
        +4
        Quote: GSH-18
        Or is it such an excuse for not delivering tanks of the latest modifications to the troops?

        And what are the shortcomings of the latest modifications? Deliveries of T-90 including MS Serdyukov hacked. His work lives on. Okromya B3 is not supplied. The tankers are still making trouble, and the budget of Siluanov and Ulyukaev is not rubber.
        1. Basarev 16 October 2015 11: 04 New
          • 5
          • 0
          +5
          Yeah. The rogue modification, not far from the base tank, is given as a breakthrough.
        2. Alexey RA 16 October 2015 12: 33 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: tomket
          And what are the shortcomings of the latest modifications? Deliveries of T-90 including MS Serdyukov hacked. His work lives on. Okromya B3 is not supplied. The tankers are still making trouble, and the budget of Siluanov and Ulyukaev is not rubber.

          And now let's imagine the T-72B3 is not. What will happen then?

          And here will be this: one division on the T-80UD, two divisions on the T-90MS and 65-70 new tanks per year. All. All other divisions and brigades are in Soviet-made tanks. Forward, comrade fighters, into the battle on the T-72B with equipment and protection from the 80s. "Baba give birth". sad

          For some reason, everyone compares the T-72BZ with the T-90. And you need to compare with those tanks that he changes. What would you prefer to go into battle - T-72A / B or T-72B3?
          1. tomket 16 October 2015 13: 06 New
            • 3
            • 0
            +3
            Quote: Alexey RA
            And here’s what’s going to be: one division at T-80UD,

            UD is a Kharkov development.
            Quote: Alexey RA
            two divisions on T-90MS and 65-70 new tanks per year. Everything.

            Deliveries of t-90 came from Yeltsin's time. Neither shaky nor roll but walked. And if one place had not been clicked, and deliveries not curtailed during Serdyukov, then the t-90 fleet would now be equal to the fleet t-90 left for export. so do not have bedtime stories about 60-75 per year. The pace of production is high, but not for us. And time has been lost thoroughly.
            Would you prefer to battle on i-15 or on and-153? When the whole 109-4 fly. Even the t-90 is no longer sufficient as a tank. And we are not even yesterday, but the day before yesterday ....
            1. Alexey RA 16 October 2015 14: 43 New
              • -1
              • 0
              -1
              Quote: tomket
              UD is a Kharkov development.

              Now the T-80UD is the Kantemirov division. And 61 BTRZ to help her.
              Quote: tomket
              Deliveries of t-90 went from Yeltsin times. Neither shaky nor roll but walked. And if one place had not been clicked, and deliveries not curtailed during Serdyukov’s, then the t-90 fleet would now be equal to the fleet of t-90s left for export. so do not have bedtime stories about 60-75 a year.

              And this is not a fairy tale. And the order of MO - 195 T-90 for 3 years.
              And I still don’t remember about the price increase for the T-90 - from 2007 to 2011, the factory price of the T-90A more than doubled.
              Quote: tomket
              Would you prefer to battle on the i-15 or on the i-153? When the whole 109g-4 fly.

              Better 10 squadrons on the I-153 than one on the MiG-3 and 9 on the I-15 of the first series.
          2. g1v2 16 October 2015 19: 32 New
            • 0
            • 0
            0
            According to August data, about 2015 tanks were upgraded in two-thirds of 600. By the end of the year I think that it will reach 800. On European TVD, these tanks alone are a formidable force. Dill now has 450 tanks, of which 350 are in service, according to the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense. That is, an inexpensive upgrade has allowed us to bring our tank units into combat-ready condition. I am not a tanker and served in centuries. So we had bmp 2, btr 70, btr-80 and even several bmd. When we were raised at night on a training alert in 2003, not a single bmd was on the move, half of the rest of the equipment stalled on the road, and a couple of armored personnel carriers got stuck and then the behi pulled out. Moreover, the centuries were better kept than the army team. Well, now imagine how combat-ready the bulk of our tank and motorized infantry units were before the reforms of Serdyukov. This is not about the units that fought in Chechnya and located in the Caucasus, but about the main part of the army throughout the Russian Federation. What percentage of serviceable equipment was then? T55, t62, t72 of the first modifications, bmp1, btr60 pb, btr 70. For example, from automobiles we had Zil 131 and when the new urals arrived, they were considered directly as the arrival of starships in the air force. lol To understand what condition was the main part of our armored vehicles, it is worth looking at Ukraine. How many of their armored vehicles were combat ready at the start of the war? In our country, if the situation was better, then only in a limited number of parts. So MASS inexpensive upgrade with overhaul is our choice. If we at least upgrade half of 10 thousand tons of 72 in the army and in storage, then there will be no rivals for our tank units on the European TVD. 2 t72b3 one abrams or leopard2 for any sort, if they are not recruits will sit. And 2 leopards will take 1 t90 ms apart and its superiority over t72b3 will not help him. PM in my opinion is better than 2 t72b3 against one leopard2 than one t90ms against two leopards or abrams.
      2. vorobey 16 October 2015 11: 42 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: GSH-18
        This is the number! It turns out the T-90 is the same T-72, the current is a bit modernized ??? Is the T72 service better than the T90?


        Did you just find out? Here T72 the previous two years as soon as they didn’t pour mud .. how many copies are broken and vodka is drunk with valerian, and saliva on the monitor .... laughing
    4. Homo 16 October 2015 11: 28 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: ilichstar
      and where is "Almaty" ???

      Where are your brains? am
      1. kayman4 16 October 2015 16: 17 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        How much tantrum. but let's start in order

        Overhaul and modernization of the T-72B1 in the T-72B3 cost the Ministry of Defense of the Russian Federation in 12-13, 19 million, which is only 7 million more than the overhaul of T-72B. That is, instead of 1 T-90A, 3 T-72B3 were repaired and uncapitalized

        By that time, a huge amount of formally combat-ready equipment had accumulated in the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, since after 15-20 years of service it required at least RTS (de facto in the amount of capital) - Normal T-72s at bases and in the troops became smaller and smaller -T -80 for obvious reasons (a very expensive tank for kapitalki - it’s not even a matter of fuel) By essence, the combat potential of the tank forces was striving for zero.

        So emergency measures to replace the T-80 with the T-72, as well as the modernization of the T-72B3, gave positive results.

        Then the state took it slowly and to bring the T-80U and BV fleet (more than 2000 units) in order.

        And finally, the military positively evaluated the combat capabilities of the T-72B3 compared to, say, the same T-72B and B1. Shouting about shit .. -You can as many as you like, but not for you to go into battle on these tanks.
  2. Mountain shooter 16 October 2015 09: 21 New
    • 11
    • 0
    +11
    Well, you shouldn’t beat bottles on your head. Everything will be - who needs it - Armata, who needs it - T-72B3. It’s quite combat and nimble.
    1. vorobey 16 October 2015 09: 24 New
      • 11
      • 0
      +11
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      It’s quite a battle and nimble



      I still don’t like the fact that the anti-aircraft machine gun needs to be controlled from the outside .. am
      1. i80186 16 October 2015 09: 30 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        But I don’t like TKN-3, what should I do now? smile
        1. vorobey 16 October 2015 09: 34 New
          • 6
          • 0
          +6
          Quote: i80186
          But I don’t like TKN-3, what should I do now? smile


          You are in motion, the open turret of the commander’s with the machine gun tried to twist with your hands, especially with banks.?. Yes, and the observation is extremely inconvenient ... At 64 and 80 the problem was solved a long time ago and the commander himself could make a decision and push the target from his barrel without distracting the gunner ...
          1. i80186 16 October 2015 09: 44 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: vorobey
            You are in motion, the open turret of the commander’s with the machine gun tried to twist with your hands, especially with banks.?. Yes, and the observation is extremely inconvenient ... At 64 and 80 the problem was solved a long time ago and the commander himself could make a decision and push the target from his barrel without distracting the gunner ...

            Yeah, I tried. True, it was still the T-62 (yes yes, all with the same TKN-3), and there was no machine gun there, but still not very nice. smile
            1. vorobey 16 October 2015 11: 37 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: i80186
              True, it was still T-62


              I started at the school with T62 ... my favorite car .. after 72 laughing
              1. i80186 16 October 2015 12: 27 New
                • 0
                • 0
                0
                Quote: vorobey
                I started at the school with T62 ... my favorite car .. after 72

                Well, in 62, it’s comfortable to live, because there is a lot of space. Indeed, in a tank one has not only to fight, but often to live. Three, for example, sleep peacefully, with lying, the fourth guards. smile
      2. serega.fedotov 16 October 2015 09: 32 New
        • 2
        • 0
        +2
        Quote: vorobey
        I still don’t like the fact that the anti-aircraft machine gun needs to be controlled from the outside ..

        In my opinion, the anti-aircraft machine gun needs to be replaced for a long time with something more adequate, for example, with a pair of the same large-caliber machine gun controlled from the fighting compartment and the boom / needle powered from the mains
    2. The comment was deleted.
    3. GSH-18 16 October 2015 10: 12 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      Quote: Mountain Shooter
      Well, you shouldn’t beat bottles on your head. Everything will be - who needs it - Armata, who needs it - T-72B3. It’s quite combat and nimble.

      T-72, whatever one may say, is an outdated modification of the Soviet design era. For tank biathlon is quite suitable. But for real modern warfare it’s gone. But if you do not feel sorry for the tankers, then yes.
      1. vorobey 16 October 2015 11: 49 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: GSH-18
        But for real modern warfare it’s gone.


        what the Syrians really refute ...
        1. tomket 16 October 2015 12: 18 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Quote: vorobey
          what the Syrians really refute ...

          What do they refute? By the fact that their fleet of t-72 was thoroughly knocked out and they moved to t-55?
          1. Hello 16 October 2015 15: 01 New
            • 2
            • 0
            +2
            Quote: tomket
            What do they refute? By the fact that their fleet of t-72 was thoroughly knocked out and they moved to t-55?

            It’s just that some especially gifted people let tanks into the city without infantry. Here and armata will not help, and even the death star wink
            1. i80186 16 October 2015 17: 05 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Quote: Hello
              It’s just that some especially gifted people let tanks into the city without infantry. Here and armata will not help, and even the death star

              So they had 4000 tanks, at least. Of these, no less than 1000 T-72. I do not think that the tanks are over, but rather the trained crews and technicians. The T-72 is, as it were, a little more complicated, and not as convenient as the T-55, again the ammunition. So they use it. Again, what difference does it make, which tank, if you are opposed by natives with PG-7V as the main anti-tank weapon? smile
      2. i80186 16 October 2015 17: 11 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: GSH-18
        T-72, whatever one may say, is an outdated modification of the Soviet design era. For tank biathlon is quite suitable. But for real modern warfare it’s gone. But if you do not feel sorry for the tankers, then yes.

        T-90, if not cool, this is the T-72 with a new fire and engine control system, for example. smile
    4. Alexey-74 16 October 2015 10: 15 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      I agree, the T-72B3 can still show itself very well, until we wait for Armata, he will serve the army well
  3. V.ic 16 October 2015 09: 34 New
    • 3
    • 0
    +3
    So what? They upgraded, so they saved money! A good "ruzzho" is never superfluous! Stock pocket does not pull ... etc. And then just what, so immediately “Armata” serve!
    1. tomket 16 October 2015 12: 21 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      Quote: V.ic
      They upgraded, so they saved money! A good "ruzzho" is never superfluous! Stock pocket does not pull ... etc. And then just what, so immediately “Armata” serve!

      They upgraded, and the supply does not pull, this is when the T-80Y went in the USSR, pulled the t-72 in the t-90 version and the t-55 and t-62 were upgraded to the AM level. At the same time, development of the t-95 was underway. This, in my understanding, does not pull a reserve pocket.
  4. Wedmak 16 October 2015 09: 35 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Saved on booking, a lot of open seats. In general, the economy option is in anticipation of new tanks.
    1. sds555 16 October 2015 09: 43 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      Only if something happens will have to fight on these tanks, there are already much more than the t-90, not to mention the t-90a, in general, a modification for regional conflicts, and for serious military operations it doesn’t have any last generation dz (Relic, at least , but there’s Contact), no kaz, this is such a modification for the poor (no money, and then, if something happens, screams will begin - as they allowed, as they thought before and you won’t return the tankers anymore, we have such a superpower, in quotation marks)
      1. Alexey RA 16 October 2015 12: 42 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        Quote: sds555
        Only if something happens will have to fight on these tanks, there are already much more than the t-90, not to mention the t-90a, in general, a modification for regional conflicts, and for serious military operations it doesn’t have any last generation dz (Relic, at least , but there’s Contact), no kaz, this is such a modification for the poor (no money, and then, if something happens, screams will begin - as they allowed, as they thought before and you won’t return the tankers anymore, we have such a superpower, in quotation marks)

        If there weren’t a T-72B3, the bulk of the tankers would go into battle on the T-72A / B or even the T-62.

        It should be understood that the T-72B3 is the result of the fact that before him for 15 years there had been no planned re-equipment and modernization of the tank fleet. As a result, I had to squeeze 15 + 5 years into 5 and do the technique on the principle of "much, fast, cheap and better than what is left of the ancestors".
        Otherwise, the bulk of the tankers would have no chance to survive in modern combat - for they would go into battle on tanks equipped with with the latest technology... 80s of the last century. sad
        1. sds555 16 October 2015 14: 34 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Alexey RA Well, if you proceed from the principle-t-72b3 is better than nothing, then your thoughts are clear, but what prevented the MO from launching the t-72b2 slingshot initially in slightly smaller quantities (I don’t think that the total number of finished products would be less than a multiple) Yes and now they would have made such a modification and would have called t-72b4
    2. bairat 16 October 2015 09: 50 New
      • 3
      • 0
      +3
      I see at least 5 layers of paint, this apparently also needs to be taken into account)
      1. demon1978 16 October 2015 10: 28 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Quote: bairat
        I see at least 5 layers of paint, this apparently also needs to be taken into account)

        Still how to consider !!! yes This is a new, multi-layer composite booking (there are 7 more layers inside at least) fellow laughing
    3. The comment was deleted.
  5. Dangerous 16 October 2015 09: 36 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    In terms of protection, of course, no tank. The forehead of the tower is not covered by anything, from the sides and so breaks through all ATGMs. One hope for the small dimensions and mobility of the T-90 is somehow more solid in this regard and looks appropriate
    1. GSH-18 16 October 2015 10: 21 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      Quote: Dangerous
      One hope for the small dimensions and mobility of the T-90 is somehow more solid in this regard and looks appropriate

      Against modern ATGMs, his "mobility" is like a dead poultice. If the parapet is bubbled up, and then drive back and forth and shoot from it, it will do. And if he leaves for an open place, a guaranteed Trindetz if the enemy has at least modern portable means of fighting tanks. I'm not talking about a real tank collision.
  6. cosmos-PS 16 October 2015 09: 38 New
    • 9
    • 0
    +9
    Something he has little dynamic protection on the tower. And the holes between the remote sensing are large. I'm afraid that in real combat the tank will show low chewiness. Since they saved on modernization, it turned out cheap. Serdyukovsky brainchild.
    1. Vadim237 16 October 2015 09: 47 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      In modern warfare, this tank is no longer a tenant, now almost all foreign ATGMs are equipped with tandem warheads or an attack core that hits the roof of the tower.
    2. KGB WATCH YOU 16 October 2015 09: 59 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      One was fought

      1. JACTUS RECTUS 16 October 2015 12: 09 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Ukraine...
        ATGM 70-80s, and no T-72B3.
        Sad ...
      2. vorobey 16 October 2015 12: 12 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: KGB WATCH YOU
        One was fought


        clap your hands with happiness ..
        1. KGB WATCH YOU 16 October 2015 12: 47 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          Che clap me something? Slap Serdyukov, who was carrying out a cunning plan, you know who, in the fight against the “Soviet mafia” in the army, Shoigu, who did not stop buying this “unavailable analogue” chariot, for “ichtamnet” and lost in Ukraine, etc. on the list.
          1. Alexey RA 16 October 2015 13: 11 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            Quote: KGB WATCH YOU
            Che clap me something? Slap Serdyukov, who was carrying out a cunning plan, you know who, in the fight against the "Soviet mafia" in the army, Shoigu, who did not stop buying this "unavailable analogues" chariot, etc. from the list.

            Would it be easier for you if instead of the T-72B3 tower the T-72B tower lay there? Provided that this T-72B from the USSR era generally reached the battlefield.

            Because the situation in the BTV is as follows:
            - either we have 3 divisions on T-80/90, and the rest depict cannon fodder on T-72A / B;
            - either we have 2-3 divisions on the T-90, and the rest on the T-72B3, inferior to the T-80/90, but superior to the T-72 of previous releases.

            At the same time, in the first version it is impossible to increase the production of T-90 - because you will have to allocate money to maintain the decrepit T-72A / B fleet (to maintain at least the minimum combat readiness of the bulk of TBN).
            1. KGB WATCH YOU 16 October 2015 13: 23 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Provided that this T-72B from the USSR era generally reached the battlefield.

              Where would he go? There the engine costs the same as on the B3.

              Because the situation in the BTV is as follows:
              - either we have 3 divisions on T-80/90, and the rest depict cannon fodder on T-72A / B;
              - either we have 2-3 divisions on the T-90, and the rest on the T-72B3, inferior to the T-80/90, but superior to the T-72 of previous releases.


              Now I will express a brilliant idea. No one had guessed before. T-55, T-62, T-72A, T-80U / BV - we write off everything and put it in storage. Absolutely everything is removed except for the T-72B and its 17th modification.

              It turns out that in our troops there should be about 2000 tanks in the state (after the reforms). 500 pcs T-90A and 1.500 pcs. T-72B. Gonim modernization of the same 150-200 pcs. T-72B in B3, but with Relic, panorama, blackjack and courtesans. It would have been necessary to increase the modernization budget, but judging by last year’s distribution of petrodollars to “friends” to pay corporate debts (which they themselves had to pay, we have capitalism) there are no problems with money.
              1. Alexey RA 16 October 2015 14: 48 New
                • -1
                • 0
                -1
                Quote: KGB WATCH YOU
                Where would he go? There the engine costs the same as on the B3.

                I would have stayed in the park "due to breakdown" or "by using up the resource."

                Not in vain, overhaul was included in the modernization according to option B3.
                Quote: KGB WATCH YOU
                It turns out that in our troops there should be about 2000 tanks in the state (after the reforms). 500 pcs T-90A and 1.500 pcs. T-72B.

                2500. And this is only in the first line.
                Quote: KGB WATCH YOU
                Gonim modernization of the same 150-200 pcs. T-72B in B3, but with Relic, panorama, blackjack and courtesans. This would have to increase the modernization budget

                Good to be healthy and rich. Then it’s easier to leave the T-90A in production - it will be slightly more expensive.
    3. Alexey RA 16 October 2015 12: 58 New
      • -1
      • 0
      -1
      Quote: cosmos-PS
      Since they saved on modernization, it turned out cheap. Serdyukovsky brainchild.

      But everything is better than what the vast majority of TBNs were equipped with before him.
      And deliveries - 200 pieces per year, instead of 65-70.
      1. KGB WATCH YOU 16 October 2015 13: 10 New
        • 0
        • 0
        0
        And deliveries - 200 pieces per year, instead of 65-70

        In the sense? If you put a Relic and a panorama of the commander from B72M on the T-3B3, then you can also rivet 200 cars a year. Of course, if the funds from the Reserve Funds are spent on modernizing the army (infrastructure, industry, roads, it doesn’t matter), and not paying the debts of corporations (which they themselves must pay, as in a normal capitalist state) and giving out loans to “friends”, thereby dropping the course ruble 2 times.

        Although what I mean. Upstairs they know better.
        1. Alexey RA 16 October 2015 13: 18 New
          • 0
          • 0
          0
          Quote: KGB WATCH YOU
          In the sense? If you put a Relic and a panorama of the commander from B72M on the T-3B3, then you can also rivet 200 cars a year.

          It will be on the T-72B4.
          And at the time of the decision on T-72BZ, the state of the tank fleet was such that it wasn’t fat — it was urgent to revive the BTV in existing plants and with existing systems. I even had to buy Thales.
          1. KGB WATCH YOU 16 October 2015 13: 29 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            It's not fat now! And in 2011, oh, how well nothing was done, no reforms, petrodollars were dripping. In 2011 did not produce a relic? Or was there a normal sight for the commander? That's who thought of the commander to give the sight worse than that of the gunner ... And now they would have had a thousand T-72B4 ...
  7. max702 16 October 2015 09: 42 New
    • 11
    • 0
    +11
    I sincerely hope that you won’t have to fight on this “modernization”, and you’ll work out the entire life of the vehicles at the training exercises at the training grounds .. On the one hand, it’s clear that Armata looms and the latest T-90m is not expensive to buy (although it could be sold later), but to fight at "this" .. God forbid!
    1. miv110 16 October 2015 11: 06 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      For landfills and it was not necessary to spend money on modernization, they would have gone off like that. Everything is quite obvious and this topic was raised and well covered on Military Review in a series of articles where everything was laid out on shelves. This modernization is absolutely nothing, saving in such a case is akin to a crime, but officials present it to us as a kind of innovative solution. It’s like Leskov’s "Do not clean your guns with a brick, otherwise God forbid war, and they are not suitable for shooting - bullets are hanging out!"
  8. BNM
    BNM 16 October 2015 09: 51 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Well, with such a machine, all hope is only for well-thought-out tactics and excellent intelligence soldier
  9. The lead 16 October 2015 09: 55 New
    • 5
    • 0
    +5
    Dynamic protection must be set according to the t-90ms scheme, but here I don’t even know what has been done.
  10. KGB WATCH YOU 16 October 2015 09: 56 New
    • 29
    • 0
    +29
    It just starts to shake me when they write about the T-72B3. Well, I just can’t. In the place of the Ministry of Defense, I would generally prohibit the mention in the press of the entry of B3 into the troops.

    So:
    - We are armed with the T-72B tank (the most massive that replaces the T-72B3) which has an outdated protection (K-1), an outdated MSA, an old engine (the great-grandson of V-2, which was placed on the T-34).
    - We invest in "modernization" (in quotation marks)
    - We get at the output a tank with 1989 level protection (Contact-5, plus a curve for installing DZ blocks), an average SLA, and with the same 840 strong B-2 great-grandson.

    And so for 3 years. Logics? I see the logic of war as “meat”, as in the XNUMXth century. What saddens.

    What needs to be done (without this, any modernization in 2015 is a waste of money):
    - Replace the obsolete in all senses (2015 in the yard) K-5 with the Relic and install it humanly, and not with half-meter holes near the gun.
    - Set the panorama of the commander (as on the T-72B3M "biathlon"), because the gunner was given Pine-U. Because of this, the firepower of the tank is not fully realized.

    What you need to do at will / opportunity:
    - Install an engine of 1130 hp
    - Remote-controlled ZPU.
    - All sorts of little things like air conditioning, automatic transmission, fault sensor, etc.

    PS this is my IMHO
    1. kizhe 16 October 2015 10: 19 New
      • 2
      • 0
      +2
      With knowledge and soul.
    2. Znayka 16 October 2015 10: 24 New
      • 4
      • 0
      +4
      I absolutely agree with you, put on the "modernization" DZ "Contact-5" (1989) fellow ), which does not provide protection from any tandem ammunition, this is not modernization, but a crime!
    3. KGB WATCH YOU 16 October 2015 10: 31 New
      • 5
      • 0
      +5
      PPS I forgot the most important thing. Do AUTO WIPE on Pine-U. How, HOW ???, it was possible in the XNUMXst century to mount a bolt-on cap on a tank sight! Not a tank, but sheer grief.
    4. demon1978 16 October 2015 10: 41 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: KGB WATCH YOU
      PS this is my IMHO

      And not only yours yes Everything came up to us request


      http://topwar.ru/16618-mnogokanalnoe-teplovizionnoe-pricelnoe-prisposoblenie-nav
      odchika-sosna-u.html
  11. Militarist 16 October 2015 10: 05 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: vorobey
    Quote: Mountain Shooter
    It’s quite a battle and nimble



    I still don’t like the fact that the anti-aircraft machine gun needs to be controlled from the outside .. am


    They improve everything by computerization, but they haven’t reached the machine gun yet. Although this is the first thing to do.

    http://vk.com/video11023144_166461167

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpYBLxHaC5A
  12. gg.na 16 October 2015 10: 08 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    This is better than nothing at all! The time will come and change for something better!
  13. greshnik80 16 October 2015 10: 11 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    This is the ugliest tank I have ever seen. The forehead of the tower is not covered at all. Any shell that is cumulative, that is sub-caliber, if it hits the forehead, the tank is guaranteed to destroy it.
  14. BNM
    BNM 16 October 2015 10: 12 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Pine-U like Belarus produces turns out to be dependent on someone again though good friends sad
    1. demon1978 16 October 2015 10: 35 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Quote: BNM
      Pine-U like Belarus produces turns out to be dependent on someone again though good friends


      TPV "Sosna-U" - the development of the Belarusian designers of the enterprise "Peleng" (Minsk). However, due to various agreements, the scope is manufactured in Russia by the Volgograd enterprise “VOMZ”.
      http://topwar.ru/16618-mnogokanalnoe-teplovizionnoe-pricelnoe-prisposoblenie-nav
      odchika-sosna-u.html
  15. divangeneral 16 October 2015 10: 28 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    Quote: GSH-18
    “In terms of its parameters, the tank is almost the same as the T-90 tank, but more economical in production and repair,” the release says.

    This is the number! It turns out the T-90 is the same T-72, the current is a bit modernized ??? Is the T72 service better than the T90? belay Or is it such an excuse for not delivering tanks of the latest modifications to the troops?


    just Almaty even in the medium term on the conveyor we will not see. The Russian defense industry is not capable of mass production of these tanks, only piece units, for parades and so on. window dressing.
    this is one of the consequences of the discharge of New Russia with its defense industry.
    such is the unpleasant truth of life
    so that old tanks will actually be used by upgrading them.
    there are still a lot of amazing discoveries ahead of us.
  16. divangeneral 16 October 2015 10: 32 New
    • -2
    • 0
    -2
    Quote: BNM
    Pine-U like Belarus produces turns out to be dependent on someone again though good friends sad


    is Father, with his multi-vector approach and Belarus’s demonstrative rejection of part of the “Russian world”, a good friend to you?
    Do you know that in Belarus exactly the same processes as in Ukraine? that it is also divided into Eastern and Western? and Litvinov-the same zapadentsy with an appropriate attitude towards Russia?
    the situation is still being controlled by Father’s stiff hand. and if according to Chavez’s scheme he has cancer “suddenly” appears? the son is not enough for a successor.
    there will be the same scenario as in Ukraine.

    won Makarevich, what do you think he was starting to move?
    and you read the wiki, who he is and where
    his ancestors from western Belarus, the former Commonwealth, from the Polish royal peasants. his grandfather was a Greek Catholic priest.
    Vakarchuk from the Ocean of Elsa - Lviv Svidomo - his best friend, comrade and like-minded
    this is all one breed, former gentry slaves

    1. van zai 16 October 2015 13: 00 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      Comrade Take a trip to Belarus yourself, talk with the people there. And do not smack nonsense sucked from the media.
  17. Trigger-Happy 16 October 2015 10: 33 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    An economical option, in short. Even KAZ is not present. Ahhh, the General Staff, the times are gone when we had plenty of people!
  18. Nik_One 16 October 2015 10: 39 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    Comrades who criticize in principle the appearance of the T-72B3, just understand the logic of the process. If we discard all the screams of the media, then the essence is this:
    1. The T-72B3 is simply the T-72B that has undergone repair and minimal modernization, but at the same time arriving at the troops in good condition, ready for use.
    2. The T-72B modernization program was launched to provide state support to the Uralvagonzavod during the transition to the release of new tanks on the Armata platform. The Ministry of Defense refused T-90, but the enterprise needs to live.

    In any case, combat-ready vehicles are needed in the troops, the T-72B and T-90A will still serve, all at once to replace the T-14. And for regional conflicts, they remain relevant to this day.
    1. KGB WATCH YOU 16 October 2015 10: 52 New
      • 0
      • 0
      0
      The T-72B3 is simply the T-72B that has undergone repair and minimal modernization, but at the same time arriving at the troops in good condition, ready for use


      There is no significant difference between B and B3. It's just throwing money away.
      You understand that at night the gunner sees the target at 2 km (because he was given Pine-U), and the commander who searches for targets sees 1 km (because he was not given a new sight)! Why spend money on a useless K-5 (also installed through one place) if you already have the same useless K-1 on a simple B-shke (here it’s installed normally, maybe it will save you from RPG-7 at least)?
      It’s better to spend the money that the MoD allocates for “this” to buy the “Warriors”, sights for small arms, or apartments for military personnel, for example.
  19. Zomanus 16 October 2015 10: 48 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    The people, and whom do you plan to drive Armata in the near foreseeable future?
    Where are you in a hurry? A little thing to drive and the T-72 is good.
    Especially if we are talking about the Trans-Urals, there are no trifles there at all.
    Armata if it goes, then primarily to the West.
    And it makes sense to send a tank there later, but the best.
    The same goes for PAK FA. First of all, everything is west, and there large quantities are not needed.
    The same thing with the ships of the Pacific Fleet, there are also air defense and other new products.
  20. Atlas 16 October 2015 10: 59 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    This is not a tank but UG !!! An attempt to make a once magnificent specimen a miserable semblance of a modern car !!!!!!! I understand that it’s against the modern ATGM that this UG has that the T-90 has few chances, but THERE IS NO SAVING on the lives of soldiers !!!!!!!!!!!!
    DZ is a nightmare, what is what is not, if the RPG grenade doesn’t even fall between the blocks, but right here they are unlikely to help.
    I don’t know who says that "this is better than nothing" - THIS AND THERE IS NOTHING ON WHICH ANOTHER AND MONEY DRINKED !!!!!!
    IMHO, even the Bulat tower is tailored much more nicely than THIS ,,, I don’t know about protection, I think they have a nightmare too, but the dough from Ukraine is much less spent than ours.
    1. JACTUS RECTUS 16 October 2015 12: 15 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      That "Bulat" that "Hold", obviously better than the T-72B3.
      But they don’t have these, but we have this ... like dirt.
      By the way, in the same Ukraine they were burned as well as old modifications.
      1. JACTUS RECTUS 16 October 2015 12: 23 New
        • 3
        • 0
        +3
        Here's another, these super duper T-90 counterparts
        1. JACTUS RECTUS 16 October 2015 12: 25 New
          • 1
          • 0
          +1
          And also "greetings from Serdukov"
          1. JACTUS RECTUS 16 October 2015 12: 28 New
            • 1
            • 0
            +1
            This "invincible modern tank", captured by ukrami.
            A sad sight depicting FALSE in every sense.
            1. JACTUS RECTUS 16 October 2015 12: 31 New
              • 1
              • 0
              +1
              Here it is a "reliable tank", burning like a candle.
              1. JACTUS RECTUS 16 October 2015 12: 36 New
                • 7
                • 0
                +7
                Now imagine that this SHIT is meeting in battle, not with ATGMs of 70 years of release and not with T 64BV, but with modern TOY or NATO tanks.
                There are no limits of indignation when the praises of the news and code about her parachute.
      2. Alexey RA 16 October 2015 14: 54 New
        • 1
        • 0
        +1
        Quote: JACTUS RECTUS
        That "Bulat" that "Hold", obviously better than the T-72B3.
        But they don’t have these, but we have this ... like dirt.
        By the way, in the same Ukraine they were burned as well as old modifications.

        Sorry, but judging by the description of the Debaltsev fights from uv. Murza, with such tactics of using the militia, the T-14 would not have helped. Even after six months of battles, tanks regularly rushed into battle without covering with infantry and processing enemy positions with artillery - with predictable results. Some photos of the Augusta tanks stuck in the Ukrainian trenches are worth something.
        1. KGB WATCH YOU 16 October 2015 15: 36 New
          • 2
          • 0
          +2
          Have the August tanks not been lost due to fog?

          “Ichtnet” fought on B3, nobody will give B3 to people who worked at the plant a month ago. By the way, they fought well enough, because only one + one was killed, and they blew up during the retreat. What can I say, glory to the Russian tankers!
  21. Atlas 16 October 2015 11: 02 New
    • 4
    • 0
    +4
    On the slingshot, they somehow managed to cover the tower humanly. What came out much more expensive ?????
  22. BNM
    BNM 16 October 2015 11: 24 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    well, the main thing here is cheaper, we’ve upgraded then 34 won according to your words " The people, and whom do you plan to drive Armata in the near foreseeable future?
    Where are you in a hurry? A little thing to drive and the T-72 is good.
    Especially if we are talking about the Trans-Urals, there are no trifles at all. "

    You are strange, why did the Americans then modernize the abroma?
    And then to postpone, with such a race, is fraught with the bitter experience of the 90s. sad
  23. Seriomilander 16 October 2015 15: 25 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    And who knows how many are now upgraded to T72B3? If there are about 2000 tanks in combat units, then with such receipts (200 units per year) it will all be over soon ... T72B3 will become the main tank. They don’t do it for storage? And in parts there is a little T90. Tell me, who knows?
    1. KGB WATCH YOU 16 October 2015 15: 37 New
      • 1
      • 0
      +1
      According to various sources, from 700 to 1000 pcs.
  24. TOR2 16 October 2015 21: 50 New
    • 2
    • 0
    +2
    And what's the point of modernization if the modernized models live in battle no longer than their un-modernized "relatives"?
  25. k_ply 16 October 2015 23: 31 New
    • 1
    • 0
    +1
    Quote: Alexey RA
    Now the T-80UD is the Kantemirov division. And 61 BTRZ to help her.

    Those. is the gas turbine T-80U and T-80UK of the Kantemirovskaya tank, is it the same as the diesel T-80UD (removed in Russia in the mid-90s)?
    Quote: tomket
    UD is a Kharkov development.

    - Apparently, too "thin", and bounced off "like peas on a wall."

    And about the 61st armored repair plant, it’s superfluous to know.
  26. Hammer 18 October 2015 19: 38 New
    • 0
    • 0
    0
    ZVO - the military district forgotten by God. As every junk was sent there, they send